I tried enhancing the Towner man in the red shirt every wayI could think of. The shirt does not appear to be plaid.

Jack

Jack,

Can you get Bernie to post your work on this question?

I'm getting different results. Thx

One of the first things I learned early on was how things look differently in a computer generated image Vs. looking at a raw image from a slide. The computer generated image can be misleading ... Just so you know!

Just as gross over exposure can mislead the eye as in the Badgeman image in Moorman? Just so you know!... Troll on.

Bill Miller

That is NOT a computer ENHANCEMENT, but a DEGRADATION...that gives it a pixelated "plaid"look.

Jack

That's because the red shirt IS plaid.

Carefully examine, in order to compare, the other fabrics & cloths worn by other individuals in this image.

These other fabrics & cloths are ALSO "pixelated" & to the same degree.

But,

only the red shirt shows the variegation which indicates a pattern colouration which is typical of plaid.

The pixels come from something & represent that something.

If you are finding different results, Jack, then ask Bernie to post your work.

I should have said that MY study of Scull's plaid shirt was INCONCLUSIVE.
That is, it did NOT show clearly any pattern of the shirt. Variations in color
seemed to be wrinkles or shadows. I would not be willing to assign ANY
description of the fabric based on my study.

Carefully examine, in order to compare, the other fabrics & cloths worn by other individuals in this image.

These other fabrics & cloths are ALSO "pixelated" & to the same degree.

But,

only the red shirt shows the variegation which indicates a pattern colouration which is typical of plaid.

The pixels come from something & represent that something.

If you are finding different results, Jack, then ask Bernie to post your work.

Thx

Miles,

Remember what I said about you being the author of how your own reputation as a serious researcher will be written in the eyes of your peers. Not only did Bowers mention these men when responding to a direct question about who he saw on the "HIGH GROUND", and its been shown what Bowers meant when he spoke of the "INCLINE" which was the slope down to the street, but you have not bothered to go see the better images of the red shirted man that DO NOT show the plaid design. For you to take a poor image and try to make it more reliable than the much higher quality image from the original slide that has no pixel distortion is not complementing your abilities as a researcher who is merely looking for the truth. To be honest, if you are bent on ignoring the difference in what Bowers called the High ground Vs. the incline ground, then you'd have better off to zero in on the woman's plaid shirt that was standing next to Brandt as seen in the Zapruder film than to be seen doing what you are trying to do.

Carefully examine, in order to compare, the other fabrics & cloths worn by other individuals in this image.

These other fabrics & cloths are ALSO "pixelated" & to the same degree.

But,

only the red shirt shows the variegation which indicates a pattern colouration which is typical of plaid.

The pixels come from something & represent that something.

If you are finding different results, Jack, then ask Bernie to post your work.

Thx

Miles,

Remember what I said about you being the author of how your own reputation as a serious researcher will be written in the eyes of your peers. Not only did Bowers mention these men when responding to a direct question about who he saw on the "HIGH GROUND", and its been shown what Bowers meant when he spoke of the "INCLINE" which was the slope down to the street, but you have not bothered to go see the better images of the red shirted man that DO NOT show the plaid design. For you to take a poor image and try to make it more reliable that the much higher quality image from the original slide that has no pixel distortion is not complementing your abilities as a researcher who is merely looking for the truth. To be honest, if you are bent on ignoring the difference in what Bowers called the High ground Vs. the incline ground, then you'd have better off to zero in on the woman's plaid shirt that was standing next to Brandt as seen in the Zapruder film than to be seen doing what you are trying to do.

Bill Miller

Nonsense.

The 6th floor scans ALSO do not rule out the red shirt as being a red plaid shirt.

Jack has said "INCONCLUSIVE" & I agree with him.

No more baloney please about how you interpret the 6th floor scans. Thanks.

Remember what I said about you being without verifiable supporting evidence & yet demanding of others that

they supply you with non-existent proof of your assertions, proof, of course, which you yourself cannot provide because it does not exist as you know.

Let me get this straight:

Do you call yourself a researcher?

OK, where's the proof of that? Or, do you demand that others research the issue of whether or not you are researcher?

Seriously, I think you can safely say that your study is inconclusive at best, and leave it at that. Now, Miles, you have a researcher that says it is anyway-- if you use Jack, who by the way, I think, said your study was more inconclusive than his.

The 6th floor scans ALSO do not rule out the red shirt as being a red plaid shirt.

Jack has said "INCONCLUSIVE" & I agree with him.

No more baloney please about how you interpret the 6th floor scans. Thanks.

Miles,

I do not recall Jack saying that he had the "ORIGINAL" Towner slides. I didn't even hear Jack say that he had copies of "ALL" the Towner slides and had examined them. In the past I have posted an animation showing a 'Life' slide of one Zapruder frame with an MPI frame of the same coming in over the top of it. The difference in quality and clarity was remarkable. If it is your intention to argue that further generation slides are just as clear and sharp as the original images, then good luck in finding anyone willing to look so silly so to try and salvage your ridiculous position in this matter. Do you even know at what magnification Jack's images were studied? Do you know the resolution settings of the Museum's scans? I know you don't, so no need to answer the question.

And when Jack said "INCONCLUSIVE" ... he was speaking about his viewing of the images he has to work with. Jack DID NOT say that studying high resolution scans of the ORIGINAL Towner slides would be inconclusive. Once again you misstated the facts.

One more thing, to even consider any of the men on the steps as being the men Bowers told Ball about, then one should at least attempt to explain why they are ignoring Bowers references to what he deemed to be the "HIGH GROUND" Vs. what he deemed to be the "INCLINE". This has been posted several times now ... do you not care to address this fact???

The 6th floor scans ALSO do not rule out the red shirt as being a red plaid shirt.

Jack has said "INCONCLUSIVE" & I agree with him.

No more baloney please about how you interpret the 6th floor scans. Thanks.

Miles,

I do not recall Jack saying that he had the "ORIGINAL" Towner slides. I didn't even hear Jack say that he had copies of "ALL" the Towner slides and had examined them. In the past I have posted an animation showing a 'Life' slide of one Zapruder frame with an MPI frame of the same coming in over the top of it. The difference in quality and clarity was remarkable. If it is your intention to argue that further generation slides are just as clear and sharp as the original images, then good luck in finding anyone willing to look so silly so to try and salvage your ridiculous position in this matter. Do you even know at what magnification Jack's images were studied? Do you know the resolution settings of the Museum's scans? I know you don't, so no need to answer the question.

And when Jack said "INCONCLUSIVE" ... he was speaking about his viewing of the images he has to work with. Jack DID NOT say that studying high resolution scans of the ORIGINAL Towner slides would be inconclusive. Once again you misstated the facts.

One more thing, to even consider any of the men on the steps as being the men Bowers told Ball about, then one should at least attempt to explain why they are ignoring Bowers references to what he deemed to be the "HIGH GROUND" Vs. what he deemed to be the "INCLINE". This has been posted several times now ... do you not care to address this fact???

Bill Miller

Miller is largely correct.

However, my study was done on the Towner image posted here...NOT my copy images, which are superior (but too much trouble to look up).

I thought my images which Tina Towner allowed me to copy were from the originals,but Gary Mack told me at a later time that she had loaned me first generation copies,which I then copied. Still, my slides are better quality than most seen on the internet.

However, my study was done on the Towner image posted here...NOT my copy images, which are superior (but too much trouble to look up).

I thought my images which Tina Towner allowed me to copy were from the originals,but Gary Mack told me at a later time that she had loaned me first generation copies,which I then copied. Still, my slides are better quality than most seen on the internet.

Jack

Jack ... Miles doesn't seem to care about accuracy ... he just wants to make people believe that the red shirted guy was who Bowers was talking about. If that means changing Bowers words - not caring about him seeing them on the 'High Ground' and not on the 'Incline' where Hudson and company were halfway down the slope ... it just doesn't seem to matter. However, your opinion still counts to a lot of people whereas Miles does not.

Dale Myers, who Miles likes to cite, did a study where he took a large man (300lbs+?) and placed him on a line of sight that lead back into the RR yard. Theoretically, if I take someone double the size of the other person, then I CAN move them further back from the camera to get the same size visual effect ... and I do not recall Myers making Vaughn's weight known on his web site. Place Vaughn up near the fence, then he is too big. Anyway, Miles used part of Dale's error in not getting the High Ground and Incline mapped out so to know where the men were standing that Bowers was talking about. This is why so much of Miles nonsense doesn't work. This is why Miles needs to say that when Bowers says 'south' - he must have meant 'north'. When Bowers said 'plaid' he must have meant 'red'. If high resolution scans of the original images shows a plain red shirt, then Miles wants to use a poor quality image to at least make it look as though there may be a plaid design present. If Bowers said the men he saw were on the 'High Ground' and it is shown that Bowers called the sloping ground to the street the 'Incline' ... then just ignore it and keep talking about a poor image taken from Marie Muchmore's film. That's why I love this stuff being archived because it shows a pattern of deception that is undeniable .......... too bad there are no forum rules against such behavior.

According to the films and photos of the man thought to be Hudson soon becomes the Red Shirt Man. EHH stopped Hudson from following behind Jack Lawrence who tried to run up the stairs after the shots were fired.

Don, I thought you said that Hudson wasn't even there on the steps ... now you are implying that the red shirted man stopped Hudson from following the guy who ran off. Did I get that right?

Bill

Bill,

Here is what I stated in my first post on this thread:

“My investigation of the JFK assassination has always led me to believe that the 3 men on the stairs are... Jack Lawrence (man who ran up the steps after the shooting), E. Howard Hunt (standing next to Jack), and Emmett Hudson (standing on the lower step below the other two). This has always been my interpretation beyond what the WC states!!”

So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs.

So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs.

Don

And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair.

Bill

Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.

Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.

Don

Don,

I am not going to getting into an argument with you, especially when I can see that you have done nothing to know anything about Hudson and yet you want to pretend to have done so. In Groden's book on around pages 54 to 56 is an enlargement of Hudson sitting near the large tree on the incline. In another capture around those pages (see index) there is a crop of Hudson that shows his hair quite well. Hudson was also a grounds-keeper for Dealey Plaza and was so on the day of the assassination. If you bother to find out what kind of clothing the grounds-keepers wore, then you will be a step to being a bit smarter than what you are appearing to me now.

About Hudson's age ... This came up long ago and if I am off only two years, then so be it. But I remember someone showing that the age we all thought Hudson was - was not correct. It was just an error on one of the assassination documents (possibly the affidavit). I believe this came about as a result of my speaking with Emmett's son (William) The person who found the error was researcher Royce Beirma by doing a search under Hudson's SS #.

Now if you don't want to know any of this, then I can tell you that Emmett's sone (William Hudson) spoke to me at length about his father and what he looked like at the time of the assassination and the "bushy gray hair" was referenced to me by William (himself). Emmett's bushy gray hair he said can be seen in many of their family pictures. William referenced a newspaper his father had showing a enlarged crop of the limo as seen in Mary Moorman's photo and William said his dad used to point himself out to all his family and friends who's come by talking about the assassination. When or if I run into William again, I will tell him they might as well throw away all those family photos of their dad because Don says that's not Emmett ... that Emmett was the thin man with dark hair down further down on the steps. (sigh~) This is not uncommon knowledge, but to you it seems to have been unknown, which I do not understand why that is with you being so sure you have the right guy.

The last thing I will tell you is that you made a remark somewhere about the man seen in the pyracantha bush as having an ear that sticks out much like one of the tramps. I did a stabilized clip long ago showing that man's movement as he watched the limo pass below him and as his head turned to the right ... what you called an ear came off his head. Yes - you heard that right!!! What you called an ear was nothing more than a sunlit leaf off the pyracantha bush and as he turned his head the leaf separated from his head, thus that is just another error you have made in reaching your unfortunately erroneous conclusion. (END OF STORY!)

Why anyone would think the guy in the red shirt is Hudson is a mystery to me. That man was neither standing next to a man on the steps, nor could have rose up together with a man next to him on the steps, nor is wearing the light colored clothing that Hudson, himself said he wore.

When I spoke to William Hudson (Emmett's sone) - he made it quite clear that his family was well aware of the Moorman photograph and which man was his dad. It sounded to me as if this topic was dicussed a good many times over the years amongst the family and personal friends. I should call William again one day to see if he'd be willing to tell me things his dad may have said in private that isn't in the official record.

Anyway - below is Hudson's Social Security number. He was born in 1905 and that would make him the 58 year old man that William said his dad was at the time of the assassination. Hudson died in June of 1991 and was born in the state of Arkansas. His middle name was Joseph ... Emmett Joseph Hudson.

I hope this has helped. There are other search engines one can use to find out about Hudson.

So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs.

Don

And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair.

Bill

Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.

Don

Don,

It's great to see some one else dealing with facts & not hearsay. Pompous nonsense soon proves profitless & retrograde, indeed.

(Can you believe the nonsense about Hudson being in uniform? The pants & shirt are completely different in colour & fabric!)

Thanks, Miles ... I assume you were referring to me as the one dealing with facts. If need be, I will also show you two how what Don thought was an ear was nothing more than a sunlit leaf - Always glad to help with getting the facts straight ... as you must surely know by now!

Why anyone would think the guy in the red shirt is Hudson is a mystery to me. That man was neither standing next to a man on the steps, nor could have rose up together with a man next to him on the steps, nor is wearing the light colored clothing that Hudson, himself said he wore.

When I spoke to William Hudson (Emmett's sone) - he made it quite clear that his family was well aware of the Moorman photograph and which man was his dad. It sounded to me as if this topic was dicussed a good many times over the years amongst the family and personal friends. I should call William again one day to see if he'd be willing to tell me things his dad may have said in private that isn't in the official record.

Anyway - below is Hudson's Social Security number. He was born in 1905 and that would make him the 58 year old man that William said his dad was at the time of the assassination. Hudson died in June of 1991 and was born in the state of Arkansas. His middle name was Joseph ... Emmett Joseph Hudson.

I hope this has helped. There are other search engines one can use to find out about Hudson.

Tim Carroll Mon Apr-10-06 10:16 PMMember since May 22nd 2005642 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list#45856, "RE: The Myth of the Mystery Man in the Pyracantha Bush"In response to Reply # 0

I applaud Bill Miller's examination and explanation of the "mystery man." He convincingly explained an issue that had been existant for a good long while. But the conclusions about human nature attached to this examination are themselves suspect. For starters, Bob Groden participated with Bill in the process that brought the better understanding. That isn't exactly cognitive dissonance. Bill wrote:

"I close by saying that I am no genius for looking at Robert Groden's observation the way I did, but rather I was simply willing to let the chips fall where they may. One must ask themselves why the critics didn't do as I did? Four decades had elapsed without an honest detailed study done over this matter."

How long was Bill interested in the JFK assassination prior to the re-enactment of Pyracantha Man? Bill Miller's work often involves good scholarship buried within attitudinal bloviation. This was one time when a fairly conclusive answer was obtainable and obtained. But isn't that how Dale Myers feels about his work? Some expertise in photogrammerty and logistical common sense does not qualify one's psychobabble.